Meta funds far-right and anti-vaccine creators via exclusive monetization scheme

Meta is directly funding controversial Australian content creators, including a white nationalist and an anti-vaccine influencer, through its exclusive Content Monetization program. An investigation by ABC News Verify found that the company pays individuals who produce content involving white supremacist concepts, neo-Nazi links, and medical misinformation.

The investigation identified several specific beneficiaries of the invitation-only program. Hugo Lennon, a far-right agitator with neo-Nazi links, has received revenue since September 2025. Monica Smit, founder of Reignite Democracy Australia, also joined the program in September 2025, though records suggest she may have earned revenue as far back as 2017. Additionally, the far-right Australian news site The Noticer earned money through the scheme starting in November 2025, despite a brief suspension between January 11 and February 15.

The Mechanics of Monetization

Meta's Content Monetization program operates as an invitation-only system that shares advertising revenue with creators based on the performance of their reels, photos, stories, and text posts. The scale of the operation is massive; in 2025, Meta distributed nearly $US3 billion to approximately 16.2 million monetized accounts. While Meta provides more transparency regarding its partner-publishers than competitors such as YouTube or TikTok, the program's structure has drawn intense scrutiny.

Critics argue that the financial incentives inherent in the system reward "rage-bait" and extremist material because such content typically generates the highest levels of engagement. Dr. Kaz Ross, an independent right-wing extremism researcher, noted that Meta's financial model rewards creators who drive engagement, and the most effective way to achieve this is by producing aggravating or extremist material.

Commercial Contradictions

These findings highlight a significant gap between Meta's public community standards and its commercial practices. By providing direct financial rewards to creators who produce polarizing or hateful content, the company is accused of incentivizing the spread of extremism to drive platform growth. This creates a direct commercial relationship between Meta and entities that frequently appear to violate the platform's own safety and monetization policies.

Meta has defended its approach, stating in a Facebook statement that it is not the company's role to "police offensiveness." The tech giant maintains that it draws a clear distinction between speech that is offensive and content that actively leads to offline violence.

Future Outlook

As regulators increase pressure on social media platforms to curb the spread of hate speech, Meta's admission that it will not police "offensiveness" may lead to further clashes with government bodies. Observers are watching whether the company adjusts its invitation criteria or modifies the revenue-sharing algorithm to decouple financial gain from high-conflict engagement. For now, a tension remains between Meta's stated safety goals and a business model that profits from the very content it claims to discourage.